Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Question for all

Posted 2 years ago on July 24, 2012, 7:53 a.m. EST by zman (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What are the moral and economic implications involved in the movement?

70 Comments

70 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I assume you all noticed that this bot dropped the grenade and never came back. Happy talking among yourselves, bye.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

(0) means you're not qualified to get answers to your question. You must post your Social Security number and Cuban Draft card.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

There is no reason everyone in this country can't lead a good and comfortable life. The resources exist and the capability is real. It is being blocked by greed in a corrupt system.

We need democracy and this federal republic is holding us back.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

"principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical actions pertaining to: the production, distribution, and use of income, wealth, and commodities. the science of economics. and pertaining to an economy, or system of organization or operation, especially of the process of production" for the people and by the people of this great nation.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

economic fairness, healthcare for all, college for all. living wage, profit sharing for workers. money out of politics. direct democracy.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

These are all good ideas, but they are not likely to come out of this movement, as it is now.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

This movement supports all these ideas. They have spoken out and informed many people on these issues. They have also changed the national dialogue regarding these issues.

Implementation of laws relating to these ideas will have to "come out of" our govt. Or the new bottom up, direct democracy being built now.

So OWS has done something. We can't be expected to it all. In the end it's up to the people to pressure all pols to create the change we need.

Elect progressives. Vote out pro plutocrat conservatives

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

I'll continue to vote for the best candidates I can, but I'll always see Occupy as a missed opportunity. Made impotent by the anarchist element that refused to participate in what they saw as a corrupt system.

They chose to stand outside the system and simply toss ideas into the arena. They left the participation up to groups like the Tea Party, NRA, or Chamber of Commerce.

They could have formed an effective lobby. They could have recruited candidates and fought successful primary battles against some of the professional politicians. Perhaps shaken up a few they didn't defeat. Instead they acted like this is all some university exercise and you get points for ideas.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 2 years ago

It could also be that this movement has been infiltrated by the power elite to make sure that all the things you mention don't happen.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

I can't worry about every conspiracy people dream up. I look only to determine what I think is a moral course of action and work toward it.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Our current political system is one that is governed by monied special interests. The groups with the most money gain the most influence and impact. You can not win working within this framework. We do not have the resources of the oil lobby or financial industry for example... those are deep pockets.

We can not form an effective lobby without large sources of money. This is the exact thing OWS if fighting. It makes no sense to become entangled with the methodology of what you protest...... the hypocrisy of doing so is clear.

And personally, I don't believe it can be fixed this way. The machine has been in operation way too long to change it from the inside. The inertia to do so is too great.

The only way to effect change in my view is to take our cause to the streets... which maybe hopefully might start the seeds a Constitutional Convention for amendments that take money out of politics, end monied lobbying, insert term limits, provide election reform, and reverse Citizens United. This is the short list on what we need to begin fixing things.

You think voting is going to change things? Go right ahead. The last 40 years have convinced me this is not the case. Be prepared for endless decades to get Congress to vote against their own best interests.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Fine, sit on the sidelines wait for some popular uprising. Join the chorus complaining about lobbies when you could get in the fight, raise money, and get laws passed.

I do agree the individual has no power, that's where I had hope with Occupy. Unfortunately Occupy doesn't want to get involved in an effective way.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Fine, sit on the sidelines wait for some popular uprising.

Do you not see whats happening in Spain, Montreal, and Greece? All indicators are that the economy is going to deteriorate and soon. I don't think we will have to wait long for our numbers to increase.

Join the chorus complaining about lobbies when you could get in the fight, raise money, and get laws passed.

So the Civil Rights Movement, Womens Suffrage, and actions in other countries that utilized civil disobedience like Ghandi have no merit and were unsuccessful with their street tactics?

Pfffftttt!!!!

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

The Civil Rights movement didn't just agitate, they supported candidates that supported their agenda. I assume the women's suffrage movement was the same. Successful movements in America have worked through the system.

Ghandi was a different case entirely, they were trying to eliminate the government and the support was significant. That may be the dream of the anarchist element, but it's unlikely to have significant support in the near future. I seriously doubt you could get a significant proportion of even the 8 or 9% unemployed to agree that the entire system of government itself has to be thrown out.

Many here see the economic problems of Greece and Spain as self inflicted and the answer as austerity not revolution. As for Montreal, the movement is meeting resistance from the trade unions and CLASSE leaders are starting to look like they are capitulating to the unions.

Doesn't matter if I'm right or not, no one can see the future. My point is that any movement should take positive steps to make change happen. To me that includes participation in the system. To just sit and hope every future event falls your way and an insignificant minority suddenly grows all on it's own into a majority is naive.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

OWS has declared itself to be apolitical. You may wish to find a different organization that is more in line with your thinking. To dismiss street actions as just sitting on the sidelines indicates that you really don't understand, more so do not have a desire to understand.

In reality both components are needed to be successful. This one isn't for you.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

True, Occupy, at least at this time, is unlikely to be more then a group of agitators. That doesn't mean I have to leave the forum totally, nor does it mean I have to give up on the idea of moving some to my way of thinking. There are quite a few here that advocate involvement in the system rather then demonstrating only.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Oh I see, you are here to splinter our group.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Chemlady is correct. I haven't seen any Anarchist system work for very long. I would love to see it. I support it. I will help build it. (if the anarchists don't exclude/banish me for having unpure thoughts)

I agree further we must continue working with the system that exists. Of course. It is foolish to pretend it doesn't exist. We can't change it by takin our ball away and crying "if you don't play my way, you can't play with my ball!"

That won't work. Work in the system to improve the lives of the 99%, To improve representation, and fairer elections, and to lay the ground work for the direct democracy system that our great anarchists will eventually come to consensus on.

This movement should be inclusive. We should "embrace all non violent tactics". If we define reforming and engaging the existing system as hurtful to our goals we will splinter.

Peace

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We also need to continue with outreach education the opening of eyes fight the propaganda that has been fed to the people.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Maybe a specific effort to counter the demonization of the terms "anarchist" or "communist". and any others.

Seems hard to concieve success in that effort but might be worthwhile.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I place a fairly comprehensive definition to refute wrong thinking/perception.

I will also post definitions of differing ideologies and then note the similarities. Democracy and Republic share many of the same values as each other and anarchy - they may just state them a little differently.


What is anarchism?

Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.

Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.

Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.

In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.

Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.

Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

You see splinter I see improve. Anarchy may or may not work, that's a matter of faith or opinion. In practice I don't believe it can work, you apparently do. Either way it isn't going to be accepted in this country anywhere in the near future.

There is no accurate count of dedicated anarchists but I've read estimates that they number less then 1 million in the US, 0.33% of the population. Working through the system may be a fools errand, but at least there is a greater chance for success with that then there is working to promote anarchy.

Besides the essence of a libertarian socialist group is direct democracy, debate, and consensus. If everyone that disagrees with you is going to be cast out your numbers will stay insignificant.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You are correct. I haven't seen any Anarchist system work for very long. I would love to see it. I support it. I will help build it. (if the anarchists don't exclude/banish me for having unpure thoughts)

I agree further we must continue working with the system that exists. Of course. It is foolish to pretend it doesn't exist. We can't change it by takin our ball away and crying "if you don't play my way you can't play with my ball"

That won't work. Work in the system to improve the lives of the 99%, To improve representation, and fairer elections, and to lay the ground work for the direct democracy system that our great anarchists will eventually come to consensus on.

This movement should be inclusive. We should "embrace all non violent tactics". If we define reforming and engaging the existing system as hurtful to our goals we will splinter.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You are 100% correct. But there is always another election. Occupy will evolve. More and more people (maybe not the few core anarchists) will come to your opinion and something more can happen along the lines you suggest.

Hang in there.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

We'll see. I just hate to see the time wasted.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Agreed. Forward. No regrets. Only progress.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Patience, my friend. It hasn't even been a year. State-Capitalism is not sustainable; it should - and must - be replaced by a more solidaric and sustainable society. The Occupy Movement has put an important topic on the agenda: How can we work towards a more democratic, sustainable future (that at some point must become reality). It is the things that VQkag mentioned that should be prioritized. Those things will not be achieved over night; it'll take time and lots of work, struggle and organizing, but it is what we must strive for.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

I meant that this movement has been too tied to an anarchistic philosophy and has refused to organize politically or use the system to change it.

I had an exchange with one man that says the anarchistic element in OWS is being marginalized so maybe things will improve. Especially as reality sets in, as it apparently did for this young man.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/on-anarchy-and-its-implication-on-the-occupy-movem/

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What is anarchism?

Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.

Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.

Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.

In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.

Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.

Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.

[-] 0 points by nazihunter (215) 2 years ago

This is the best attempt at saying so little with so much that I have ever seen.

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

It's been an idea for a long time, a concept embraced by a very small minority. It depends too much on altruism to be successful in a large complex society.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

How much altruism we could have in a large scale complex society is debatable, but it doesn't change anything in that Libertarian Socialism is about people having a democratic say in the things they're a part of and affect them. This is a pretty logical and reasonable suggestion.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Any ideal is subject to the support that it gets as well as the manipulation of some for their own gain. As well as misinformation spoken about them or truth carried forward - all is subject to the human condition.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

This "anarchistic philosophy" should be strong in this movement. The ideas of more direct democracy and challenging all sorts of authority and domination are imortant.

How much one should prioritize getting directly involved in status quo party politics can probably vary from area to area I guess, but in the states where the system is so broken and corrupt as it is now, I understand very well those who don't want to take any part in it.

Remember, there are more and better ways to organize a democracy than just putting a piece of paper in a box every 2nd year; also something many occupiers correctly have put focus on. There are many ways to work towards these "good ideas" as you correctly call them.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We do need a better system. But to ignore the system we have plays into the hands of the 1%. Better to continue working on this system to get some change. Even to attempt to lay the groundwork for a better direct democracy representative model.

But if we encourage MORE progressives to give up their right to vote we will be handing over more power to the right wing conservative 1% puppets.

Anarchy has never worked anywhere. Giving up our right to vote under the fallacy that "both parties are the same" is a mistake.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I'm not saying way should totally ignore the current party-political system. I'm saying that there are more dimensions to a democracy than just voting for men in ties with big salries. People should push the politicians in different kind of ways to make better choices, but many other things can be done as well. Here are some of my suggestions to how we build a better society:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1321101669_the_transition_phase_.html

"Anarchy has never worked anywhere"

Wrong (spain 1936 f.ex)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Spain didn't last.

I will look at you blog. And I will say that we will have a true direct democracy. I believe it is logical evolution. I think it will not happen if we do not take power back from right wing conservatives.

Direct democracy (anarchism) is more in line with progressive agenda. So it is in the interest of direct democracy/anarchy that we improve the current system in order to allow for the eventual evolution that will come.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Spain didn't last"

No, it was crushed. But when it existed it worked pretty well, even with a lot of destructive forces surronding them.

"And I will say that we will have a true direct democracy."

That would be a dream come true :)

"I think it will not happen if we do not take power back from right wing conservatives."

We must take the power back from the right wingers - and the financial elite (who are the real rulers to a large extent) - but there are many things that can be done. F.ex: Communities organizing and eventually workers' takeover of industry. I put together a video a couple of months ago "Occupy your Workplace". Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&list=PLFA13007BC448B051&index=0&feature=plcp

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Definitely worker takeover should be encouraged. certainly co ownership/profit sharing, anything that might serve to limit the obscene disparity of exec to worker salary levels. Its the only way to utilize corp profits responsibly and to the benefit of the vast number of workers.

Solidarity.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Good to hear, my friend. So my point is that there are many different things that can, and must be done in order to put the power back in the hands of the workers and communities. There are more dimensions to working for a free, egalitarian and democratic society than just voting for people in suits; it can fex also be done on a more local level with the creation of more engaged active solidaric communities - the type of work ows has put on the agenda.

Solidarity to you to :) ..and solidarity to the first occupiers who lit the spark to this wonderful movement. sff

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Anarchy is simply unworkable.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

because..???

Working for, and establishing a free, democratic libertarian socialist society is what we must do; people should be able to control of their own lives and work. Anarchism is common sense.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

In theory it sounds nice, but then so does a representative republic. In theory a representative republic is actually superior to a direct democracy. In theory, it prevents people from overreacting emotionally to a situation passing hasty laws. Our constitution also protects the minority from the whims of the majority. In a republic people do have control of their own lives.

When you put it into practice direct democracy for a population or over 300 million would not work. You would need representatives.

In theory people would participate in decisions, in practice they don't. If people actively and intelligently participated in our republic it too would work well. Anarchism is one of those things that may seem right intuitively, but I don't see it standing up under practical conditions. Better to put the effort into fixing what we have then trying something few want.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Anarchism is about direct democracy in the sense that democracy should be built from below thru democratic communities, democratic workplaces/institutions etc - a system in which right to democratic say is proportional to how much you're a part of and affected by things; but noone I know of advocate 100% direct democracy all over. Of course there has to be representation in a large scale society.

Check these two out, please:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

The point is building a society in which people control their own lives.

If you think "it sounds nice in theory" as you say, you should embrace the ideas and contribute to finding ways to make these ideas reality.

If anarchism could, to a very large extent, become reality in huge areas in 1936 Spain, just imagine what we can do in a highly developed technological 21 century.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Yes I said it sounds nice but only in theory, a republic sounds nice too, and I believe a republic can work and work better then libertarian socialism. I don't see it as having been a success in Spain. The anarchists took over and had the force of arms to back up their move, they were not voted in by the people at large.

The way most anarchists talk about building from the bottom up is to take control of private property. This idea of taking the means of production is a hold over from trade union days. It is a bit outdated for a nation which is now mostly a service economy, but it shows the population in general how a majority can abuse it's power. If you take private property from a business today you can take it from me tomorrow.

Co-ops could be a way to build from the bottom up or small communal societies that live independent of the rest of society. I'm often told by anarchists that the progress would be too slow or they can't come up with the money or land. I feel as though the anarchist wants things handed to him rather then put in the effort at anything other then rhetoric.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

There was a civil war going on, with destructive forces surrounding them.

"they were not voted in by the people at large"

First of all, there were many discussions and direct democratic participation with councils etc, but they were not full time politicians with high saleries, no, but again, there are more dimensions to a democracy than just voting for men in ties.

The economy is all-encompassing. And there are different kinds of property rights. Today's property rights are not laws of anture, they can - and should - be changed to better ones.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/property-rights/

Anarchism is about building a democratic society in which people are in control f the things they're apart of and affected by. Tghat's not an unreasonable suggestion.

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

There isn't much to say about Spain, the anarchists in Catalonia had the organization and the guns to enforce their will. Maybe the population went with it willingly, maybe they chose not to argue with armed men. I believe one you believe the other. People have often accepted tyranny in exchange for some measure of personal safety.

Direct democracy isn't any better then a representative republic, it may actually be worse. We have a say now, we control our own life now, and we have a constitution that places the rights of the individual above those of the group. This protects us from the tyranny of the majority.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

To be honest with you I'm not a big fan of constitutions. It should be the people living today that should get to decide what kind of laws they must live by. I don't mean to say that the US constitution is crap from beginning to end, what I'm saying is that the laws must be decided by the people, not dead slave owners; and if you like some of the ideas in these documents, present them with good arguments. If the people aprove, then ok.

If you think it's reasonable that people should be in control of the things they're a part of affect them, shouldn't that include workplace democracy then?

Please read this one: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-anarchism-is-the-way-to-go/

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Not a fan of making a constitution? How would you protect the individual rights of people? It's not like people will suddenly be better citizens and study each issue. What you'll get is that other anarchy, confusion and disorder.

Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. I don't want the receptionist voting on what drug to use for my treatment at the doctor's. I worked part time at a liquor store once. The owner knew about wine and liquor, he made the decisions on what to buy, he took the risk. I just picked up my pay for working the register. What say should I have had in the business? None of the profit was the result of my decisions, I didn't know what decisions to make in that business?

Some workers may have insight that would help a business succeed they can voice their opinion, but work is a trade, you enter into it voluntarily, the worker does a task and is given pay.

Workers have choice, you can work for a large company and buy stock in it. That gives them a vote. In the case of the auto workers at GM, the workers chose to sell some of their shares of stock. Apparently they felt they don't want or need a voice.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"How would you protect the individual rights of people?"

By building a bottom-up democracy, where people are in control of their own lives and communities. It must be the people living today that should get to decide what kind of society they should have, not a piece of paper written by dead slave owners. I'm all for Individual rights, but it must be the people that get to decide which kind of rights that should apply.

"Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace.."

If one believe in the pretty obvious and reasonable principle that people should have a democratic say in the things they're affected by, then it definitely belongs in the workplace.

"None of the profit was the result of my decisions"

The employees at a grocery store contribute to the store by working hard; their workplace is a huge part of their lives, they should have democratic say in the things they're affected by.

"but work is a trade, you enter into it voluntarily, the worker does a task and is given pay."

This is nonsense.

The agreements taking place in a state-capitalist system are of course far from being voluntary. In this society, you have some people with huge wealth and recourses - which on the national and global level are very highly concentrated - and others with very few or no wealth and resources. It is of course meaningless to talk about “voluntary agreements” in such a society, because the ones owning the recourses, the wealth and the means of production etc, have much more power in society. That includes of course that they have the advantage and overwhelming power in a job hiring, negotiations etc. So the non-owners - the workers - are trapped in a society in which they, in order to have a decent life or necessities in order to survive, must sell their labor to people who have much more power than they. This has very little to do with voluntary agreements, rather it’s submission to necessities.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-exploitation-and-involuntary-agreements/

And also, when it comes to the economy we’re not, as individuals, living in an isolated bubble of some kind, just “minding our own business”. On the contrary; when it comes to the economy we’re all in the same boat. The economy is all-encompassing and affects us all.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Not working to good at the moment.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Spain? No it isn't but that has nothing to do with anarchy one way or the other.

[-] 1 points by ideasforfree (3) 2 years ago

I think that true reform will require a variety of movements many with different focuses, and which may not agree with each other on all issues. My experience is that it is difficult to try to "change the mind" of the founders of a group, but nothing is preventing someone from pursing their own principles. I think that what will determine success is how, in the new technological age, different groups aimed at reform communicate and pursue common goals when necessary. In fact the internet with it's instant forums provides an unparalleled ability to do that. I could even envision a kind of Global organization of protest groups from different countries--a United Nations of reform groups, where negotions between the peoples of different countries and groups with different philopsophies but common aims supercedes negotions by state leaders.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

He doesnt know what he is talking about, throwing a bunch of his own crap in there.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

That's okay, most of us don't know what we're talking about on some days. It doesn't matter when talk is all it is. That unfortunately is how I see Occupy, too many good ideas and no action to organize a political move to implement any of them.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So make some suggestions - be the voice you seek. Advocate.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

No point in being another individual tossing an idea in here or there. My original thought was to get people that are not professional politicians to run for office. The response was that many in Occupy don't wish to participate in a flawed system.

What does that leave? Sit around and complain? Individuals are powerless. That's my main complaint about Occupy, it's a nice start to raise awareness, but organization and a willingness to be engaged in the system is needed to make change happen.

With the recent shooting in CO, talk again turns to the NRA. Why do they have money and power? They have a clear goal, people that believe in it and contribute, and they get politicians elected to make laws for them. No reason why that method couldn't work for Occupy.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Get involved. I don't just post and comment here I also advocate on twitter. I also contact various organizations if I can see something that they could do better and only if I have an idea of how that can be accomplished. I also take good information that comes my way and share it out ( circulate it ) in the same manner. I circulate/share good petitions and awareness that these petitions/campaigns exist for people to get involved with.

One person can not make a difference - if they don't get involved.

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

I don't see this as a viable movement as it exists now. There is some general awakening, but it lacks any real political organization to capitalize on that awareness.

As long as we're isolated individuals without political representation there will be no economic changes. The only moral change will be in the guilt felt by individuals that give up when they are unable to effect change alone.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

id settle for land for all, and for the government to quit charging us for stuff like driving a car, having insurance, owning a gun, or operating a business, or taxing our property, or taxing our products we have in our business that isnt selling.

id settle for the government stop pretending that they are "managing our land" under the false title of bureau of land management, and just admit they stole it from us and give it back!

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

I think that parents have a responsibility not only to the children but also to society; I think much of the dystopia in America today is the product of a general lessening.

To empower the single head of household, whether male or female, is to deny the role and benefit of parenting to society. To empower those who favor a lessening, in any manner, to favor self interest, is not good.

Parenting also impacts our ability as economic units; aside from the combined input of these "units," economy cannot be shaped or controlled, so I think we will continue to see a general lessening.

What we need in this country is a benevolent dictator.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Remove money from politics, prosecute the Big Banks/Fed Reserve and expose them.

Those are two things that this thing was started on. Its what the core is. Its all you need to fix the entire economic situation in this country.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"Its all you need to fix the entire economic situation in this country."

No way. The state-capitalist system must be dismantled. It's undemocratic, unsustainable, inhumane, and tyrannical - it is intolerable, it has got to go.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-democratic-deficit/

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

To each their own...

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You don't agree? I think what I said is pretty straight forward obvious. Capitalist models must be replaced by a free, just and more democratic soceity.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If you think this is a capitalist model.....nevermind.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What we have is state capitalism; but whther it's laissez-faire-c or state-c, they're all tyrannical, undemocratic, unsustainable systems.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27682) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

When capitalism is allowed to run free it runs wild - this is not a good thing.

All capital organisms need to be regulated/controlled.

This is not a denial of personal freedoms - it is a protection of personal freedoms and rights.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Capitalism in all its forms must be dismantled, and replaced with a sustainable, just society with democracy built from below, and where collective, as well as individual rights are protected - Libertarian Socialism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp